The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Cut The Crap - NOW

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-01-10 09:09 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 653 references
[Comments enabled]  

The latest?

A sitting Congressman claiming that "we" will fight a sitting President..... in the streets.

 

It'll be a long, nasty, dirty war.

If you're not alarmed by this sort of rhetoric, and don't find it to be cause to immediately demand that any such "lawmaker" be expelled and even prosecuted for a terrorist threat you're not very bright.

It would be legal to call for a general strike, for example.

But fighting in the streets is another matter.  That's a declaration of intent to commit violence against a sitting government.

Good luck with that Mr. Californicated.  May I remind you that your Governor has just declared he intends to allow illegal invaders to access Medicaid and that the Federal Government has not only no requirement to fund that it has an explicit requirement not to under current law, and that without said funding California will fiscally collapse within months.

Then what?  You have a bunch of very angry illegal invaders and a metric crap-ton of homeless junkies, all of whom will be cut off, and no way for the state to fund any of their bullcrap.

Good luck with that.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-01-09 09:08 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 252 references
[Comments enabled]  

Dueling speeches....

Trump, for all his warts, actually read off a teleprompter it appears.  He was quite focused and didn't display any of his trademark mannerisms.  That is neither good or bad, it just is.

Pelosi and Schumer, on the other hand, dodged the existential question of the shutdown and border: The Democrats have never negotiated on the actual border and actual security.  They have repeatedly given things (such as DACA) that are legally impermissible, relying on the courts to prevent an unlawfully-given thing from being retracted.

As such there is no other way than to "hold the government hostage" to get them to negotiate.

Yes, there's a gun to their heads.  Too bad, so sad.

But the hidden underbelly is that neither party wants to stop illegal immigration.  Where was the demand for 100% E-Verify?  Missing, of course.  Why Mr. President?  Because your buddies in the farm belt exploit illegals for work just like the Democrats do so for votes.

It's really not much more complicated.  The President is correct that tons of dangerous drugs flow over our southern border.  While it is also true that most of them are smuggled in vehicles that pass through actual checkpoints some goes through tunnels and other means of crossing in many places where there is no wall and even less surveillance of the border.  After all tunneling tends to produce very visible signs on both ends.

It's a "manufactured" crisis when a girl in Iowa or a cop out west is shot by an illegal invader?  Really?

It's not about percentages when it comes to crimes.  It's about dead people, raped women, sexually abused children and that none of those crimes would be committed if the illegals were all gone.  And yes, I said and meant all of them.

Nor is it a "manufactured" crisis when tens of thousands of people intentionally and falsely claim asylum, often bringing children as human pawns.  In the US we call that felony child abuse, because it is.

Why do we let anyone get away with it when their skin color or nation of origin is "correct"?

Nor is it "manufactured" that most of the human smuggling ("coyotes" and similar) are controlled by organized criminal gangs.  Those would be drug smugglers, human traffickers and worse.  One third of women attempting to "migrate" are sexually assaulted before reaching the border.  These are NOT reasonable, nice, or law-abiding people and we enable and make profitable their "ventures" by allowing those who come via that method to stay.  We could instantly destroy their entire business (and all the misery they cause) by passing a single-sentence law: Anyone who enters illegally will be instantly removed and is permanently barred from future lawful entry to the United States, and no child begat from an illegal entrant is permitted citizenship or residency -- period.

Nor is it "manufactured" to state that these are illegal invaders.  A "migrant" asking for help doesn't break the law as their first act in America.  If someone asks you for food or money that's panhandling (and generally legal.)  When they break into your home or steal from your store that's theft, burglary or worse.

The facts are that essentially all of these illegal invaders cost the people (through the government) more than they pay in taxes.  That's why they come; we have a welfare state and they wish to steal from it.  It's theft; they're not entitled to anything as a non-citizen illegal invader into this country.  No criminal is entitled to keep the fruits of their crime.

Migration for economic reasons is not a valid reason to request asylum.  Not here, not anywhere.  That's the law.  They come because they intend to cheat.  They admit their intent and that they know their asylum request is false when they state up front they're coming for economic reasons.  And then they commit a crime by unlawfully entering the country instead of coming through legal channels to pursue what they know, in the vast majority, are claims that are unfounded and will be rejected.

A burglar comes for economic reasons too.  He enters your home or place of business because he wants something that benefits him economically and you have it.  His first act of unlawful entry is exactly the same as the illegal invader.  Then he takes what he wants, the second unlawful act.

These so-called "migrants" are doing the exact same thing to the tune of more than a thousand people daily and the Democrats claim this is "manufactured."

smiley

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-01-07 10:54 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 288 references
[Comments enabled]  

So Ginsburg is going to miss oral arguments -- for the first time.

I know what she's thinking because she's said so in the past.  She wants to "make sure" she retires while a Democrat is in office so she can "insure" her USSC seat goes the way she wants.

This, of course, is blatantly improper -- the USSC is not supposed to be a political entity.  But it's not actionable, because "supposed to be" (or not) isn't the same thing as a law, and there is no law that says the USSC can't be a political animal.  It runs contrary to the intent of the founders and any hint of common sense but..... what else is new?

In any event the facts are what they are.  She's old and now has had three bouts with cancer.  Cutting people up is never a good thing, and doing it to old people tends to be much more risky, even if you have the best money can buy (while you make everyone else have substandard care that bankrupts them and their families.)  Such is the "privilege" of Kings, you know.

But none of that matters to Brother Grim.  He doesn't give a damn about your privilege or politics. He comes when he feels like it and he takes what he wants.  No King, no USSC Justice and no President can bargain with him or, as is the common act of tyrants, threaten him.  Attempting either just elicits a guffaw in response.

The hard-left House will go bananas when RBG passes in the next year or so, and she shall.  It's not a wish or a desire for ill will, it's just odds and facts.  RBG bet her seat on Hillary winning and in fact inserted herself into the selection of our last President in 2016 -- an act that was and remains unconscionable.  Now she, and those on the left who cheered her on, are just going to have to deal with the reality of the day; you have a Republican President and solidly GOP Senate and in the context of a USSC appointment there is nothing the House or anyone else can do about how the nomination and confirmation unfolds.

Not that Ginsberg cares; as a member of the hard left she believes she's above not just the law but comity as well, and thus can do whatever the hell she wants.

She may be correct about all that and certainly has been thus far, but the guy she can't negotiate with or turn her nose up at is knocking on her door and she has absolutely zero control or influence over his level of patience.

Let the howling commence as I prepare to tip a glass.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-01-07 10:40 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 136 references
[Comments enabled]  

The correct term is lying when you use "newsspeak".

Parkland Shooting Panel Report Calls For Arming Teachers, Chronicles Slew Of Blunders

So says the headline.

But just a couple of paragraphs into the article we get this:

The probe also tears into school staff and sheriff's deputies involved in the incident, some of whom it says contradicted "ample evidence" captured on video and audio surveillance footage. The Public Safety Commission argues they either intentionally told falsehoods or offered differing accounts due to incompetence.

Deliberately telling "falsehoods" (which can be proved by physical evidence) is not a "blunder."

It's a lie.

There were plenty of them and they haven't stopped since the event either.

The report is unbelievably damning.  But even more-damning is the number of people who have tried to use that incident as a foil to do things like take guns from people and reduce safety rather than improve it.  The number of people shot, and that Cruz was able to get into the building at all to shoot people was a direct result of the multiple, serious acts of gross negligence in the design and function of basic security protocols.

Then the cops compounded the stupidity and got even more people killed.

Between the FBI and the local Sheriff their gross negligence amounts to indictable conduct.  However, nobody ever gets indicted or held to account in any way in the government when they pull this crap.  That's nonsense, but it's true.

I said at the time of the event that no gun restriction would matter.  I'm now proved right -- those kids are dead because of government malfeasance.  The shooter did the shooting, but for the malfeasance he wouldn't have been able to get inside the building and the only people he could have shot at were those charged with securing the perimeter, which is a known risk of their job.

So yes, he might still have killed people -- but only those who knew going in that was a risk of their employment and willingly accepted that risk in exchange for a salary.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-01-06 10:35 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 274 references
[Comments enabled]  

So the IRS won't pay refunds during the shutdown eh?

Representative Richard Neal, a Democrat who is the new chairman of the House of Representatives tax-writing committee, expressed concern that the IRS, the U.S. tax agency, has already furloughed most of its work force and stopped issuing tax refunds since the partial government shutdown began Dec. 22.

I will tell you that they have no problem cashing your checks -- or issuing TINs.

In fact Thursday they issued two to me for two estates I'm managing.  The usual web-based service worked as it always does and immediately spat back the confirmation and forms with the numbers on them.

I'm sure they will have no problem cashing my quarterly estimated check too.

If they won't pay refunds, which are not their money, but will take money then the American people's response ought to be an immediate General Strike, right now, end of discussion.  It's not their money.

If you walked into a store and bought something for $9.45, they took your $10 bill and then refused to give you the change after accepting the $10, which formed a contract to return the excess funds, you'd likely to ballistic right there at the checkstand.

Well?

Never mind that essentially nobody can file right now anyway because they don't have their 1099s or W2s yet.  Unless you made them up, of course, which probably means you're an illegal invader who's committing tax fraud as your second illegal act in the United States.  Gee, how come those people don't go to jail?

But we're Ball-less Americanus these days, aren't we?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)